Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Basant, E-5, Mandore ~Ndustrial Area, Mandore, Jodhpur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 104 / 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Ayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. Versus M/S Basant, E-5, Mandore ~ndustrial Area, Mandore, Jodhpur. *t2& 7 T xppu : -q eo nin ect@d-FfWijt#jq% 5 .- *$?"'i*:,jF bi' i " .' 4 ,* ' 8) fl 2 2,' ~;:~.$~.&orne Tax Appeal N;. '7.6 ~f2Q.10 Commissione* <.: 7 0Tfncome -9 Tax-Ii, Jodhpur ..,, :,* a*, "- "0 a*, ,7---Appellant 2% %.14 w 4% ;---.,. % Y ,.+A ,; Y "- WqvB- *'. Y P '9 7%' Versus ndore, Jodhpur. M/S Basant, E-5, Ma ----Respondent Commissioner ----Appellant andore, Jodhpur. -M/S Basant, E. ----Respondent D. B. 1 nc~;m:e%Ta&.&ppea.P~N@ ,*.> +;diG. ;.:..+ wC%\Zx -, .,*A?, i" $ ;'snF~ .$;Z.O 5 / 20 12 Commissioner of 1 n co fiqxpa~3;1b:S;+~~y;~k~~i;@~awa %.-a . -.+ JQ, . I,C d . % n , Pa eta C Road , Jodhpur. t,, :'I@& .*.YS~.."...~-.%&&*?::~ %,?. .$ ' ,.T .. !?..1*b*r p r- 3 ,--- i Versus M/S Basant, E-5, Mandore Industrial Area, Mandore, Jodhpur. For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judqment / Order 25/01/2018 I. By way of these appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department. PA. Tk ,, *kit 1 K ir 3 , ,r 77 ,4- v ,,.# \L " qt 1; LX. -- 2. This court '$bile ,admitting ' the abpe.ds framed following 1). " T{ pp (%+ 2 diPP) g$&d su bstantiaI.'~lu:est~on "+&, j. of law: - x ,J ,+. p .& ??-- "' ;'<> .., b .,) /" *@*$> A~~~~PN&. 104/2012 104/2012 g * ""-.>> 5. *Y ~j"" A~~~~PN&. 104/2012 104/2012 *Y I Whether on the factslaaddin p.%---.f . -.,-.tt )e circumstances of xy*p5* L&$?i the case, the I . T@>Fbwas <& qus;FC@ei&i;n~h ,r olding tha t the assessee was "zi;g,-"fitIe;4&;s"i2 . ., 3 .::, . - r... $-. +2<Q&J . yo.. -;~/~$mi.~.ex,~p ~g~+~+~ tion under &&T< g$$~y,;$2$t-$ id;,+ C*', gf& i,& @A:;&;: \& L q m,,. ;:*I <A A< ~~!;YC..~CPZ~Z<?Y Section I th:ei-~~~~~gn~-g&g;;~y~g~t,~$&~~es undertaken w;;b3&3j.1"m> ,b<:4t;;i;i2;L%c2h$. bej>i9 "bQsXnness ? .?d,2,'i,??.s.T. t ,, 9- 5.: ./>L.!. r:.' Y &" the case, the .espaOdlin t5-abs'ess@e a lt could be said to 13 <: \ f! :* .; be a newly est3b1wbeLd ,, .BV 6 2 v7 * ., @\( ! d as to be entitled to to such units under 3. Whether loking the --%*- provisions of Secfion o .% the Act in . . $ 2Wym-e rRme:'wm,w ?-->f r-% 3t j+:~ the present case ?wi. M Appeal No. 76/2010 I Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B of the Act on the activities undertaken by them in course of their business? 2. Whether respondent (assessee) can be said to be a newly established 100% EOU so as to entitle them to claim exemption available to such units under Section 1 OB. Appeal NO. 62/2012 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 108 of the Act on the activities undertaken by them in the course of their business? p< -mT K.:i i -. 2. Whether on%the fat@ a",dJp' the circumstances of the dT \fiL U$ $ii'-* case, ~~thdbr&3pondents-assessee"cbu16be .- -\ said to be a t'-+ .,. 2 $4, p-yy ne~ly,?~~~~~~established I; 100% EOU so as t&b%,zentitled to .*>". <#& cla~q-? exemption available to such units un*deeh Section ,S.L't* V ii ri"* I I@B of the Act? * *. .:y52i Appeal NO. 105/2 1. Whether on circumstances of the case, the ITA assessee was en Section 10B of th them to claim exemption available to such units under Section 1 OB. Appeal NO. 62/2012 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 108 of the Act on the activities undertaken by them in the course of their business? p< -mT K.:i i -. 2. Whether on%the fat@ a",dJp' the circumstances of the dT \fiL U$ $ii'-* case, ~~thdbr&3pondents-assessee"cbu16be .- -\ said to be a t'-+ .,. 2 $4, p-yy ne~ly,?~~~~~~established I; 100% EOU so as t&b%,zentitled to .*>". <#& cla~q-? exemption available to such units un*deeh Section ,S.L't* V ii ri"* I I@B of the Act? * *. .:y52i Appeal NO. 105/2 1. Whether on circumstances of the case, the ITA assessee was en Section 10B of th 2, Whether 013;; @ie:*i:faegs~an'd4.j~ a - .- ; the; ~6ircumstan ces of \~~@x&.$>x~&"%~$: &',.*, ~-~*7'x-v&-,'>~."<:y* :z,-, @ -,.- -,, u ~:A?, ?:Zy- ,\ ?&. the case, the respo:~:de~:ts~a,ss8essee could be said to be a newly e3~a~fish>&.100~?&0~ tq%j "4 h.i Q7; v&4 k so as to be entitled to claim exemption available to such units under Section 10B of the Act? 3. Whether the CIT was justified in invoking the provisions of Section of Section 263 of the Act in the present case? 3. Counsel for the appellant has supported the order of the A0 and contended that CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have seriously committed an error in considering the issue involved inasmuch as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in his report observed as under: However, the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard on 26.12.2008. Before me, the assessee furnished deta'ilgd r@.@ly~in-yhich reliance was placed on va$ci,oiousdw[~ ;-f 3 f3%. ngs a n \ %% d. speo~al$@te fo ii I, Pi l low i n g : \ bp 4- 3: 44- CITvs EX&I-~bftech Ltd 219 CTR405.' \%.\. .;-.: ".- $<P \ CIT ~s~~Maliavir Spinning Mills Ltd 303 ITR 353-.,,;6,5x *i * AssFsse'e also filed a photo album showing prd~e"ss7 of dP:.i-.?J p;r@bcts. Further, assessee argued that durlng =. relkvant period: 1 What was purchase,d,,,,QPesides raw wood, were parts of some were to be export 3. No finished i 4. 'The assesse e facilities to manufacture each But, some time, d ime or for regardijg manufa'~~g2p&@ces~:*~ .pii I L‘IS"~X~~~ I have perused the material supplied by the assessee as well as the AO. I find that assessee has purchased substantial amount of wood besides some items like ' Wooden Glass Door 2 DWR almirah" etc @ Rs. 4900 each (deminsions also given in the bills) (referenced- Bills No. 210 dated 16.12.2005 and 219 dated 4.1.2006 of M/s Jay Ambey Art Palace). Apparently, this reveals that purchases of complete Almirahs have been made. But, during the course of hearing, I assessee tried to explain that these purchases relate to purchases of outer structures/frames of Almirahs though the narration of the bill does not refer so. It was contended that to maintain the trade secrets, only structures/frames or some of the parts of the items to be exported are purchased from different dealers and major work of manufacturing or developing these items into exportable items is done is assessee's own factory. Like, in the case of almira,hs, only outer structure was purchased and all interior of the almirah, doors and fixing of doors and accessories was done in assessee's factory premises besides several other process of finishing and polishing etc. Precisely, it was emphasized that what was purchased was not the almirah but a struct~re~qr frah'eiand l+f! g- ,/P"%~ that it was not a usable or exportdbl&*i-t~ri;l!. gd,~ s atx-, yL& Acco~d'ing +L. ,.i& ; Xo,the assessee, similar wa,s th'e case in other purchases,;off,,thg parts of J iFy# *.-.,-w P- ir r other ex.go@able items. Q- <,- 2 p- k,F F AlthouQp you are also of the view that ~n--yley of . \, &Y .fA aboqe, the assessee may be treated as manufaqqrer. f3&/I would suggest that following verification need$ .+. \,' to'be made to come to the final conclusion.: a. Whethe structures/frame unfinished ite b. Whether t y the assessee exported after nd finishing and that these parts in be held as be exporte@j $!otily 4 . gi bk finishing and i; "& ' \A colou ring/pai nting ~i~.~~~~,~~t e.e~A.~r.:e:. +t.pt /i~~.$pijbcesses qz:i; a Y-% to convert u nf i n is hed i tem i n$o~ ~;kg~~~~+/~:q~r:~.w::>. fiin~~she,d~,i~@e.~s~:~~~~~~ -I% a% a$,&~,. a on l y. ) g-$ii$p,*..C it.- &fP; P( f I f *$$.:&W*:::Y><@.~~:X\ If t h e ve ri f &i I @at~~~~~e.~u~kt~~~ng~t'@~a~~~~r i, r ,* $*k@~~-di&"- -.qq m a t ive a n s w e r, you may proc@e;d *,*. rs, l.$o-'.'k~.e;d'bd 'the! assessee as .i'"""ly.r < *< -\s$;i.f\ 1.&$:+%p.p&,< manufacturer a~&p~posed~~iyx~y~i&BB,- h+g:?,~ +d,,~*, ,.,,, A% 3% $A Otherwise, the decision taken in ea,Flq&&$~$@~&~~fi~ s to be followed, Besides, though iss-uEs $t 3 ~7~ ~el,ating,t.o~c~En@itions yy *IS i-c4 applicable to section 10B af~:g~@~sb'b~ec~~@a~t~~ before me, you have to examine these conditions also in view of circulars/ instructions on the subject to time to the final conclusion before allowing deduction u/s 1OB. 4. He contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. 5. However, counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court, Jaipur Bench in CIT Vs. Goverdhan Prasad, DB Income Tax Appeal No. 2991209 decided on 2.3.2017 wherein the issue was considered in detail and it has been held as under: "4. Counsel for the appellant has contended that tribunal has committed serious error in reversing the finding of the CIT (A) which is based on the factual matrix and benefit was given after actual calculation and that has been reversed by the tribunal without any valid analogy. 5. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Gargiya has taken us to the order-of the tribunal which reads t: as under:: -; /$%, T<>Jk ;=-# ?.P ,@% '$x*J~"r gfr 2." * * *" 4%. :jsb< r% ,? *, p 'A bfdthe rule 23 (1) $b) show that there isi .-+. no~rohibition %+ on the buyer exporter'debarring + br it -ifr$iW' making changes in the prodb,Gt!s+ to be ,+. zx'borted. A combined reading of the ~$e' along '., f ,Y with the said Form exempt a buyer expoite&fr.om "I;"., JLY +y the levy of the sales tax, to the extent an e&p&er makes purchases and exports the same. The only * the dealer (seller) same. There is noxr,eauiremenhas such in the Rule ~**p~y~w**A*@, *&k3*<~&, and Form Qh'at~$kijej %gjoad;sesq. purchased by the buyer appellant hias"td be exported as such i.e. in % u*i. "' 4 -.p 4 the same condition in which it was purchased without any change. Such goods can not he read as the same. The certificate page 14 given by the buyer appellant in Form ST 17B also supports this interpretation wherein the goods purchased by the buyer appellant has to be identified with reference to purchase order no., challan no. Etc. Otherwise also, instead of drawing inference to reach to the conclusion whether the activities tantamount to manufacturing/production, the better course for the authorities below was, to consider the various * the dealer (seller) same. There is noxr,eauiremenhas such in the Rule ~**p~y~w**A*@, *&k3*<~&, and Form Qh'at~$kijej %gjoad;sesq. purchased by the buyer appellant hias"td be exported as such i.e. in % u*i. "' 4 -.p 4 the same condition in which it was purchased without any change. Such goods can not he read as the same. The certificate page 14 given by the buyer appellant in Form ST 17B also supports this interpretation wherein the goods purchased by the buyer appellant has to be identified with reference to purchase order no., challan no. Etc. Otherwise also, instead of drawing inference to reach to the conclusion whether the activities tantamount to manufacturing/production, the better course for the authorities below was, to consider the various activates undertaken by the appellant after the purchases of the raw material, which has been discussed in detail in the earlier part. There was no warrant to jump to the provisions of the Sales Tax laws which otherwise do not support the case of the Revenue. We find the contention of the Id. CIT DR contradictory in as much as with regard to the certification by the custom authorities as to the nature of the export of the disputed articles of being of artistic value, whereas by drawing inferences only, it is argued that no activity was carried out and it was a matter of simple purchases. Such-pf approach I! 9P-=>f of the Revenue is disapproye& ar tt A. #gfinith.b?ja,g$ee2~ith . it *' the contention of theG%.. Counsel that the use of?the machinery is <.Z?t. >* only .fo prepare the wood purckased by the I.>.*?? *;appellant with a view to make it fit~~tdt$&further @ ,& p. pl?6chnical steps to be carried out by artisromaIt is "II gz~+f ";- nothing but a prepatory stage, before hani+w:o'~k is 9 .c+ -I. commenced. The machine work is confine:d to seasoning of wood which normally contains utting. Further fall of workers OBA (2) (e) is @erusal of copies A0 (PB 23-72) an 20 workers in engaged in the apart the other ases are also the es consideration for CIT(A) has also now ee had employed ed u/s 1OBA. The Revenue on the (supra) is also ra 13, the ITAT mber decision in case of Ari~~~fp~_Til$a~m&~g&J&~ 104 7TJ 149(JD). +'FY q*, '-&(2 ;! However, t Re; gsj;s4-me1 %no w3 tstaiBd s reversed in the case of MIS% ~rihant MarbleY~iles Pvt Ltd vs IT0 (2007) 295 ITR 148(Raj.). Moreover, there is a specific definition of the eligible article u/s IOBA, which is not the case u/s IOB with which Kwal Pro Export (supra) was concerned. Therefore, the said decision can't be applied being totally distinguishable. It has been held that an incentive provision has to be construed liberally as held in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v/s CIT 188 ITR 196 (SC). The present case also helps achieving the avowed object. Once the underlying purpose of an enactment is served, there is no reason why the deduction should be restricted on one pretence or other. Recently in CIT vs Baby Marine Exports 160 Taxman 160 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly advocated for a liberal interpretation at pg 168 & 169 vide paras 26 & 27. It was held that Section 80HHC was incorporated with the object of granting incentive to earners of foreign exchange. This court is Sea Pearl Industries vs CIT (2001)2 SCC 33 also observed that the object of selection 80HHC is to grant incentive to earners of foreign exchange. In IPCA Laboratory Ltd vs Dy. CIT(2004) 12 SCC 742 this court has taken the same view. Thi.? courti- 4.n the said judgment a7 ~4- 0bser~~~~~~~~.~80 .MYC _g <bas :! ~~6. 6f%tj ?been incorporated withia G.~~. vbew to provide incentWezto-egport house $6 and tbts section must receive liberalkmterpretation. hk>aV .TJh.e totality of facts and circumstance&a:kbin view W s. ".--&.p'f the factual position and evidences, ~eia'r~eifully satisfied ' that the appellant was engage6i3-the manufacturing and production of the ;l,i$&le articles under the provision of IOBA and hence the -n appellant is fully @Ta5tlkd to get the deductions. llow the same. is allowed." 6. of the decision e Tax Appeal Jaipur-I1 vs. M/s tions made by the Marbles (P) Ltd. that the process interferen~e~i~-in~&k~$~-.j~wd~grne~n&of the Tribunal is * 41 ~,!wd %:4 $ T$ called for. Theussue IS a:nsw.e,red in favour of the assessee and against the department." 7. He also relied upon the following decisions:- (i) In Income Tax Officer vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 0079 (SC) holding as under:- "At the outset, we may point out that in numerous judgments of this Court, it has been consistently held that the word "production" is wider in its scope as compared to the word 'manufacture". Further, Parliament itself has taken note of the ground reality and has amended the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 by inserting s. 2(29BA) vide Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1st April, 2009. In the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 157 ELT 393(SC), the question that arose for consideration was whether cutting of marbl:e blocks into marble slabs amounted to manufacture for the purposes of Central Excise Act. At the outset, we may point out that in the present case, we are not only concerned with the word "manufacture", but we are also concerned with the connotation of the word "production" in Section 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which, as stated hereinabove, has a wider meaning as compared to the word "manufacture". Further, when one refers to the word "production", it means manufacture plus something in % y?(t f r'a addition theret.85 ezydh >,*.& el @fg,word-.. -PT4 c@orfl was not under -,J &-e. $ consideratibA bef6re this Court in- ghe@9-e~,se of Aman ~arble-~iE$stries @.? Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Be thatas it may, in thaFcase, it was held that "cutting" of mar&e$locks g 2- into s~a:bs>~er se did not amount to "manufact.u:~eJ.~, This pcQ$=lusion . MI__ was based on the observations maddit5v this Court in the case of Rajasthan State ~lectricit~ Board (supra). In our view, the judgment of this Court in Aman has no One of the that in all such cases, the Court has to case one has to into polished we find from the process indicated at there are various stages through3~bichwt~, b&-c#hhave to go through before they be~p@~ql~~h&d7j sl'$& and tiles. In the circumstances, we are of the view that on the facts of the cases in hand, there is certainly an activity which will come in the category of "manufacture" or "production" under Section 801A of the Income Tax Act. As stated herein- above, the judgment of this Court in Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. was not required to construe the word "production" in addition to the word "manufacture". One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while deciding the question as to whether the activity constitutes manufacture or production. Therefore, looking to the nature of the activity stepwise, we are of the view that the subject activity certainly constitutes "manufacture or production" in terms of Section 80IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned Counsel appearing for the Department. Applying the above tests laid down by this Court in Budharaja's case (supra) to the facts of the present cases, we are of the view that blocks converted into polished slabs and tiles after undergoing the process indicated above certainly results in emergence of a new and distinct commodity. The original block does not remain the marble block, it becomes a slab or tile. In the circumstances, not only there is manufacture !bup~-also an activity which is it--# fL J7-\r p%jt something v>qxIQi$[?&mufactlil~rg .and fiQ,& ;S..-T ;which brings a new product )nt~~dhi&nce and, theref6r,e, ,pnp the facts of these cases, we are of the view that thek~/h~~ourt was right in> coming to the tonclusion thatlttle activity ~nde~~aken by the respondents-assessees didz~dn~titute 4ma'A"facture .<&fix-Y or production in terms of ~ection~86&~ of the Income Tax Act, 1961.' (ii) In Arihant kles & Marbles (P) Ltd. vs. IT0 (2007) 295 ITR 0148 (Raj.) the Income Tax nnexure to be ulars in which ssified under been inc~u@~d~~~~f& =seeto% **'-I of manufacturing industry. Thrs .go.esd to 'ai8d6hat so far as the authorities under the Income Tax entrusted with the task of its implementation are concerned and the framers of the Rules have considered the cutting of marble and granite blocks into slabs and polishing them for bringing them to the stage of usability as an activity of industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture and production of articles or things. Rules framed under the Act are statutory and became part of Statute. Thus under the Scheme of Income Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder for the purpose of said Act cutting and polishing of marble and granite blocks have been held to be an industrial activity of manufacture. As a block, it is not of any use and has been held to be a manufacturing industry for the purpose of Income Tax Act. It may be pertinent to notice that even as per its circular, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (vide Circular ho. 729 dt: 1st November, 1995) has considered' granite as a mineral, and any process applied makes it valuable marketable commodity. Board has clarified that: The Board is, therefore, of the view that white granite can alone be considered as mineral, any process applied to granite would deprive the quality of rough mineral from the dimensig~ral blqcks,,+~f granite, which is a value a@d,ed 5. h3<k6ta61ei u cominod,ity. As we have '%4 $'..*,/ alrea@gdt-ice"d that the interpret$ion given under :k9 fi ', ExclsedAct cannot ips0 facto be brou+g.htph:ere while #2<*'' 4infgipreting the expression under the '(In'dcime Tax y~$ct. Apart from that, we find that even %ndbr the ig.-,..,)+ ".. Central Excise Act, the Legislature *+@&~kl~ ',V intervened and inserted in Chapter XXV NO&~ declaring that process ,of cutting, sawing, sizing or d amounts to aptly applies to iginal commodity used for building 6t into different sizes It is only by the ck into slabs and he marble block and after the case supp~$~~t~p~~~~on~eg,ti~ of appellant. On .fs 8, --A & fibqu -31. %-::? parity of reaso,n~qg;-~t@is>p~~ng~,ple can be extended to the facts of present case. Marble blocks as a mineral produced from earth by itself is not usable for any purpose, therefore, to make it usable, various processes which could be applied to bring it to that stage would amount to manufacturing. After it has been broiught to that stage, further processing it merely for the purpose of making it marketability easy or smooth would not amount to manufacturing process. Accordingly, appeals are allowed and we hol,d that in the facts and circumstances of the case, conversion of marble blocks into slabs and tiles amounts to manufacture of thing or article within the meaniLng,,o.fSectio.n 80IA/ 801B of the Income Tax Act and appellant is entitled to claim deduction thereunder." (iii) In Grace Exports vs. IT0 (2012) 254sCTR 0449 (Raj.) wherein it has been held as under:- of thing or article within the meaniLng,,o.fSectio.n 80IA/ 801B of the Income Tax Act and appellant is entitled to claim deduction thereunder." (iii) In Grace Exports vs. IT0 (2012) 254sCTR 0449 (Raj.) wherein it has been held as under:- "The counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that the view as taken by the ITAT cannot be sustained for the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income-Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd.: (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) holding, inter alia, that step-wise activity of cutting marble blo-ckg , , 8 xx a"n@ r .~i c$nVe'rtjn.g .[ -.jf it 4c >. - into the polished slab p,a,nlrib~~,tles const-~:ti@e-fitpanufacture or prod@t$~.&iin ---.\ terms of Sectioit dO$@iiu*of the Act. Tkre,leFarned counsel for the revenb,efji;)not in a "Q, v .@ 'Y pob~tion to controvert fhe submissions s'oc;ma,de on pt$bhalf of the assessee appellant. ~av*i"n'~>~one ?i 9.". . ~;$%=d %+, , through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme';Co;urt -' in Arihant Tiles and Marbles (Supra), the view bs taken, by the I cannot be sustained. peii.pq*ry-*n Accordingly, he -w~s not : justified in d i sa I I ow i n &,%. g~<~~Jenefity .@ % +~.~,b2Pg<lz7- ~awalllabil.e to Ajlf.i Jfe+i . gr %.2~. the assessee .- .a i +Sf' cFq under Se.~tion.dJ@~~ 8: *8<a+&\y+&wk* @Bvkf$-e b541 xe %?& >, 352- **A, 26 . >v~~~ Jdy,r;4 ax .* :,.f~;+"at* Act; a n d t h e v i e w a s T,a'<e ~.~~by~~~$@;e&g~i~u~g~a kkicJo es not stand in ni&*,&.#F.;+,) 'i g ,%E$Pg~4*%h w conformity w~tki~ppjthe;-~~~ ag;-;d2gcl:aared 4Ly 2 f.+s2.p$ by the Hon'ble &&& &3:fg~,$&! &t Surpeme Cg-yig$g@j$De ;pisgy$;?!ncome Tax Officer Vsm M/s Ari @$'$f&@&$ig{ %qd2;yQg&~g$$fi? k@.$&:.:n ~M&I@ %&* -1 *a - wrr ,;&&&; P. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79. ACC~~~I gig$%gggke&?;pea l as filed by the revenue befofg 11 '357/~~/2008) for the II stand dismissed as .O-B of the Act." 6. In t "'.I". I;:$GB@~iSsues &!";I$ are answered *-=**2 4g a 3tp $??:'":( A .h*-.n -,.-4-- f&@&b;j A -4- favour of I IC. 7. The appeals standTdiAsmA\,ed, -% %$zq w3 i '8 q \'i (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHAT1)J. (K. S. JHAVERT)J.